Article

2003-11-17 Afghanistan

Joe Farah - WND - Doesnât Like Afghanistanâs Draft Constitution

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonon 2003-11-17 4:39:58 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I was initially surprized by the ability of anti human rights Islam to hand on in a country oppressed by the Taliban. But, as explained in this article

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/ohmyrus30816.htm

human rights and Islam are essentially incompatible concepts

Posted by mhw 2003-11-17 8:07:38 AM|| 2003-11-17 8:07:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Well, anon...since we didn't get a perfect world...we should have just left the Taliban in place. Right? Boy were we stupid. Oh sure, we CRUSHED AQ, but instead of occupying their country, we gave them back the reigns of power to self-determine their governement based on their own culture and beliefs. Such a failure has never been seen.

Posted by B 2003-11-17 9:30:51 AM|| 2003-11-17 9:30:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "in the absence of an explicit statute or constitutional limit, the Supreme Court should decide "in accord with Hanafi jurisprudence" â one of the four main Sunni schools of sharia."

key words - in the absence of an explicit statute" IOW theyre treating it as common law, the basis for judicial decisions when NOT overridden by explicit statute. Presumably explicit statute and constitutional limit will stop the objectionable aspects of sharia - whats left may be relatively innocous questions of civil procedure, etc. I know traditional jewish law is filled with such things, i presume muslim law is as well. Also note that theyre selection Hanafi jurisdiction - IIRC its the Hanbali school that is the one associated with Wahabis and other hardliners. Hanafi is more moderate.

I got to agree with B. We didnt go into Afghan to establish a secular liberal democracy - afghan is MUCH farther from the social conditions for that than Iraq. We went in to crush AQ - and while we're there to make things better than they were before we went in - which I believe we've done.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-17 9:47:01 AM|| 2003-11-17 9:47:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I used to read WND fairly regularly, and usually agreed with most of what was said there. However, in the last two years, many of the comentators that contribute regularly there, including Farah, Buchanan, and others, have moved FAAAARRRRR Right - way beyond my inclusion zone. I still visit, I just pass everything I read through a bullshit filter before allowing it to penetrate.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-17 2:17:28 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-17 2:17:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I know, I know the Afghan constitution is bad, however don't judge it in US terms: this is not the US where people swear to defend the Constitution all of its ennemies, this is one of those countries where the Constitution is designed to be sit upon (that is why they tend to be 300 pages thick). Stalin's Soviet Union had an incredibly liberal constitution. On the opposite side Franco had saddled King Juan Carlos with a Constitution who didn't allow him to restore democracy, Juan Carlos swore fidelity to Franco's constitution... and had it undone in less than three years.

All it takes to unmade this constitution is a liberal ruler, or more exactly a liberal ruler and enough guns and money.

Posted by JFM 2003-11-17 2:40:04 PM|| 2003-11-17 2:40:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Easy on Joe Farah. He is one of the most decent persons I have ever spoken to. I endorse the "Northern Alliance Solution," retroactively, as little as that is worth. It would have meant a scorched earth policy in the Pashtun areas, but it beats permanent war. Actual war conduct - smart-bomb intimidation, and negotiated armistices - was in large part, a status quo ante. Taliban/al-Qaedism underlies existing Pashtun social-political culture. The Northern Alliance should have been given a free hand in liquidating these elements. A future civil war is inevitable.

Also, Wilsonian' "self-determination" was not inclusive of aggressive and racist ideological movements. I respect the shura choice of Taliban Afghanis, about as much as I support the democratic choice of the citizens of the Weimar Republic who voted for Hitler in large enough numbers to eventually allow Nazi government. Again, the choice is for OUR security, even if it means suppressing THEIR freedom.

Posted by Anonon 2003-11-17 4:05:44 PM|| 2003-11-17 4:05:44 PM|| Front Page Top

18:05 US MARINE SSGT
05:37 Zenster
12:31 Scaramanga
23:37 Anonymous
23:33 Atomic Conspiracy
22:51 Frank G
22:43 S
22:42 11A5S
22:33 tu3031
22:29 Gasse Katze
22:27 tu3031
22:23 joe
22:20 Pappy
21:35 Bomb-a-rama
21:25 Yank
21:23 Jarhead
21:17 Super Hose
21:11 rg117
21:10 john
20:50 Matt
20:37 Fred
20:13 Anonymous
20:05 Fred
20:01 Fred